Product Liability -- 2014



Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Butler   (U.S. Supreme Court)

Predominance of common questions in product liability class certification

Lawyers for a few purchasers of front-loading washing machines have been trying for several years to get final approval to represent a large class of people who they claim should be able to sue Whirlpool and Sears for making and selling machines that may have mold and odor problems. Two federal appeals courts certified classes even though most members of the class may not have experienced such problems or any other injury. In 2013, the Supreme Court threw out those decisions and sent the cases back for reconsideration in light of another recent decision on class certification.

The lower courts again certified the classes, and Sears and Whirlpool appealed to the Supreme Court again. The NAM filed an amicus brief stating our view that those courts took too expansive a view about certification. The vast majority of class members in both cases have suffered no injury at all, and the different washing machine models have undergone several design changes that undermine the argument that there are issues common to all class members. The courts should not promote efficiency of litigation to certify large classes where common issues among class members do not predominate, as required by court rules.

Class certification in meritless circumstances where consumers have suffered no cognizable injury encourages class action abuse. Ultimately, consumers are harmed by these class certifications because businesses have little choice but to incorporate the cost of frivolous product liability litigation and litigation avoidance into the prices paid by their consumers.

On Feb. 24, 2014, the Court declined to review this appeal.


Related Documents:
NAM amicus brief  (November 6, 2013)